3 ms·

I think it comes down to something that people don't like to say outright: Many of us want the ability to evade the government. We are afraid of the government

I think it comes down to something that people don't like to say outright: Many of us want the ability to evade the government. We are afraid of the government being too good at their job.

darkxanthos 13y ago
Exactly. That's the point I'm making in my other reply. The problem isn't that the government is watching... it's that it claims to have jurisdiction over too many issues that it shouldn't be involved in.
- orblivion 13y ago
  Right, but my point is that there's no magic that makes the government act within its jurisdiction. We should try to force it to limit itself to that (and then some, but that's another discussion), but we shouldn't assume we'll succeed. Generally, I do agree with you. No expectation of privacy. Generally, this doesn't particularly bother me. Which means I would guess (from a very lay point of view) that there's no justification to require warrants for flying drones. Anybody should be able to fly a drone. However we should arguably be fighting against this anyway, to keep the government from being too good at its job, since we can't trust it to do the right thing with whatever power it's asserted.
  - darkxanthos 13y ago
    That's a very valid point.
northwest 13y ago
Government is power. And power simply must be limited. If not, there will be even more abuse, meaning: democracy will be curbed or even eliminated. And that means, general injustice will increase sharply. And this leads to a lock-in situation where injustice cannot be reversed b/c it protects itself. It's already the case to a certain degree in Washington, today, when you look to what extreme extent money is replacing democracy ("money" of course being a handful of ultra-rich people).
- JumpCrisscross 13y ago
  This is the equivalent of saying "too much of x is toxic". The tautology arises from the fact that the line between "not too much" and "too much" is what defines toxicity. Saying "power simply must be limited" doesn't do justice to the individual-collective trade-off. Yes, power must be limited, but deciding at what point and to what degree is the whole debate. Simply stating that power needs to be limited at some non-specific threshold doesn't add to the conversation.
  - northwest 13y ago
    I suppose we pretty much all agree that a general "too much of power" level was reached a while ago, in Washington. Of course, we could go more into detail regarding what and how exactly, but the main thing seems to be: All this centralized and money-based power has caused too much corruption in the general system.

I think it comes down to something that people don't like to say outright: Many of us want the ability to evade the government. We are afraid of the government being too good at their job.

darkxanthos 13y ago

Exactly. That's the point I'm making in my other reply. The problem isn't that the government is watching... it's that it claims to have jurisdiction over too many issues that it shouldn't be involved in.

orblivion 13y ago
Right, but my point is that there's no magic that makes the government act within its jurisdiction. We should try to force it to limit itself to that (and then some, but that's another discussion), but we shouldn't assume we'll succeed. Generally, I do agree with you. No expectation of privacy. Generally, this doesn't particularly bother me. Which means I would guess (from a very lay point of view) that there's no justification to require warrants for flying drones. Anybody should be able to fly a drone. However we should arguably be fighting against this anyway, to keep the government from being too good at its job, since we can't trust it to do the right thing with whatever power it's asserted.
- darkxanthos 13y ago
  That's a very valid point.

northwest 13y ago

Government is power. And power simply must be limited. If not, there will be even more abuse, meaning: democracy will be curbed or even eliminated. And that means, general injustice will increase sharply. And this leads to a lock-in situation where injustice cannot be reversed b/c it protects itself. It's already the case to a certain degree in Washington, today, when you look to what extreme extent money is replacing democracy ("money" of course being a handful of ultra-rich people).

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
This is the equivalent of saying "too much of x is toxic". The tautology arises from the fact that the line between "not too much" and "too much" is what defines toxicity. Saying "power simply must be limited" doesn't do justice to the individual-collective trade-off. Yes, power must be limited, but deciding at what point and to what degree is the whole debate. Simply stating that power needs to be limited at some non-specific threshold doesn't add to the conversation.
- northwest 13y ago
  I suppose we pretty much all agree that a general "too much of power" level was reached a while ago, in Washington. Of course, we could go more into detail regarding what and how exactly, but the main thing seems to be: All this centralized and money-based power has caused too much corruption in the general system.